Sunday, July 22, 2012

One thing I have absolutely zero respect for is when people critique a book or documentary film without even reading or watching it. A recent article in Architect Magazine seems like a clear example of this, except the author supposedly did watch the film he's critiquing. You wouldn't think it though. The article is about AE911Truth's movie Expert's Speak Out. On page two, the author writes:

The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of
pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked
technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings
collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of a thermite reaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used.

All
of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers,
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute
for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil
Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably,
by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

The last paragraph in particular leads me to suspect that this guy wasn't paying much attention to the film at the screening. The architects and engineers in the film not only address the FEMA and NIST reports and the ASCE/Bazant papers, they cite data from sources such as these to support the demolition hypothesis.

And neither FEMA, NIST, the ASCE or Popular Mechanics even acknowledged the existence of the thermite evidence in their reports and articles, let alone debunked it.

Throughout the article, the author repeatedly links to pages of the website Debunking911, as well as Frank Greening's hilarious "paper" arguing that natural thermite reactions could have occured in the buildings. It's clear he hasn't done much research into this controversy.

ScrewLooseChange and JREFers are reporting with glee that the AIA is distancing themselves from AE911Truth, as if that somehow proves the 1700 A&Es are full of crap. It doesn't. All it proves is that the AIA is more concerned about its own reputation than anything else and is too cowardly to question the system. When someone makes a statment full of vague assertions and typical establishment rhetoric and talking points, such as those in the paragraphs I quoted, it's called pandering. The AIA - much likeRIBA last year - are playing politics and they should be ashamed.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Photographs and video footage have vindicated Gage, as they show the same phenomenon of negative low air pressure occurred with WTC 1 after the collapse of WTC 2 making it appear as if the entire building was on fire.

Skip to 10:25 in the following clip to see video of the above effect and proof that the majority of smoke around WTC 7 came from WTC 5 & 6. Click here to see just pictures showing that most of the smoke came from WTC 5 & 6.

So, the highest out of control fire was on the 13th floor, the sprinklers from the 21st through the 47th floor were working, and the building was designed to limit fire and smoke spread between floors.

It is also important to note that the fire shown by RepresentativePress is of the southeast wall, not the south face of the building covered in smoke. As WTC7.net points out, "This photograph (of the southeast wall) from FEMA's report, and others like it, appear to be the only evidence of emergent flames."

If WTC 7 was possibly poised to collapse it is strange that there were no widespread reports that WTC 5 might do the same given the severity of the fires. The evidence indicates that there were very few individuals that concluded WTC 7 would come down based on direct observation, but rather parroted information passed down by individuals that also somehow predicted the unprecedented and unexpected fall of the Twin Towers, as evinced by the fact that so many firefighters bet their lives on the fact that the Towers were reported to be able to sustain such damage and fire. For the few who did believe WTC 7 might come down based on their own observations it must be pointed out that their opinion would have been skewed after just seeing two 110 story skyscapers crush themselves.
As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor AdamT. pointed out in his post "Debunking Joseph Nobles: Other Buildings," "Many debunkers have suggested that the partial collapse of WTC 5 supports the theory that fire could have brought down Building 7. In fact, if anything, it does just the opposite."

The fire reports ranged widely. While no one has talked about a towering inferno or even a huge conflagration, Fire Capt. Brenda Berkman did affirm “fire on every floor” (S. Hagan and M. Carouba Women at Ground Zero p. 213). But perceptions do differ, even among professionals, and it would be easy to confuse a lot of smoke with a lot of fire. Mark Jacobson, a journalist who’d reported large fires, recalled “the whole building wasn’t on fire”; instead, he wrote, “there was a lot of fire coming out of a few floors” (NY Magazine 3/37/06). The photographic record also supports the conclusion that the building experienced medium to hot fires on a few floors.

Even those promoting the hypothesis of destruction from fire damage have come in way under Capt. Berkman’s estimate. According to NIST, itself a prime defender of this theory, fires burned on only ten of the building’s 47 floors—and only on six did they grow and burn out of control (NCSTAR1A p. xxxvi). Moreover, officials with Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) of New York who entered WTC-7 said “there was a fire, but they did not think the building would collapse” (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00174.pdf). Thus Con Ed personnel apparently felt the building was safe to enter, reporting only “a fire,” not the “large fires” claimed by many proponents of the fire theory.

It was the Fire Department, then, that predicted the building was going to collapse. Granted, a walkthrough is not an inspection of a tall building. But if in fact the fires were small, on what basis did building security personnel and the FDNY chiefs make a different determination?

Friday, July 20, 2012

In order to understand what nanothermite is, we first must understand what ordinary commercial thermite is. Thermite is a mixture of a metal and the oxide of another metal, usually aluminum (Al) and iron oxide (Fe2O3), in a granular or powder form. When ignited, the energetic Al-Fe thermite reaction produces molten iron and aluminum oxide, with the molten iron reaching temperatures well in excess of 4000° F. These temperatures are certainly high enough to allow cuts through structural steel, which generally has a melting point of around 2750° F.

There is also a variant of thermite known as thermate, which is a combination of thermite and sulfur, and is more efficient at cutting through steel. This form of thermite is believed to have been used in the demolition of World Trade Center Building 7. Although conventional thermite has the capability to cut through structural steel, it is technically an incendiary and not an explosive.

Nanothermite (also known as superthermite), simply put, is an ultra-fine-grained (UFG) variant of thermite that can be formulated to be explosive by adding gas-releasing substances. A general rule in chemistry is that the smaller the particles of the reactants, the faster the reaction. Nanothermite, as the name suggests, is thermite in which the particles are so small that they are measured in nanometers (one billionth of a meter). The authors of the peer-reviewed Active Thermitic Materials paper, which documents the discovery of these materials in the WTC dust, explain:

Available papers [by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and others] describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to form pyrotechnics or explosives. The thermite reaction involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical reaction with iron oxide:

2Al + Fe2O3 ? Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), ?H = -853.5 kJ/mole.

The public announcements of the development of nanothermite composite materials as explosives date back several years before 9/11. As Dr. Frank Legge points out , “ researchers were describing methods of preparing nano-sized particles, using them in superthermite, and calling such material ‘explosive’ in 1997. It would therefore not be correct to assert that by 2001, four years later, they would be unable to utilize the material in demolition.”

In additon, 911research.wtc7.net notes the following:

One of the critiques of theories that thermite was used to destroy the World Trade Center skyscrapers asserts that thermite preparations don’t have sufficient explosive power to account for the observed features of the buildings’ destruction. This criticism seems to be uninformed by knowledge of some of the aluminothermic preparations known to exist – particularly those being researched for military applications.

Indeed, as 9/11 researcher Kevin Ryan has shown, there is substantial documentation detailing how nanothermite has been formulated to be explosive. For example, a summary report released at the 2008 AIChE conference by chemists at the University of Houston describes how nano-thermite composites can be engineered to create explosives:

Nanoenergetic thermite materials release energy much faster than conventional energetic materials and have various potential military applications, such as rocket propellants, aircraft fuel and explosives. They are likely to become the next-generation explosive materials, as they enable flexibility in energy density and power release through control of particle size distribution, stoichiometry and choice of fuel and oxidizer.

Some critics have also claimed that neither thermite nor nanothermite has ever been used to demolish steel structures. Even if this assertion were true, it would not be proof in and of itself that these materials could not be used in demolition. As Dr. Legge notes:

It could be true, and probably is true, that the three buildings which came down on 9/11 were the first in which some variation of the thermite reaction was used in demolition. It is however not logical to say something cannot have happened merely because it had not happened before: there has to be a first time for everything. It is certainly true that thermite had been used many times in arson attacks prior to 9/11.

To read more about the thermitic materials that were involved in the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers, see the AE911Truth Evidence webpage and our original article about the discovery of these composites in the WTC dust.

I am a concerned citizen who wants the real truth about 9/11 exposed. I find science fascinating. I also enjoy researching the history of the origins of religion.
Bio: http://www.scientificmethod911.org/authors/taylor_author.html
Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/3zynhh3

Good video. It's﻿ also worth noting that NIST itself has addmitted that several of these other buildings burned just as bad or even worse than WTC7.

“There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1981), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 5 (2001).” -NIST WTC7 FAQ

Monday, July 16, 2012

Hosted by Bernie Suarez and Andrew Steele. In this episode Bernie and Andy talk about the Scientific Method and NIST's disregard for it in favor "computer model science". The guest this week is engineer Wayne Coste, who talks about 9/11 science and censorship.

"As a registered professional engineer committed to the scientific method, I would like to echo Ted Goertzel's support for the peer-review process. Goertzel says, "review panels must have full access to all datasets ... It is especially important that ... qualified specialists [have] an opportunity to present alternative views ... " Engineers who observe the destruction of WTC 7 as possible only by controlled demolition have been stifled by the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) decision to suppress details of their WTC 7 failure models. For example, NIST replied: "Indeed the NIST Director has determined that the release of 3,370 files from the [failure] analysis results ... might jeopardize public safety and therefore, these files have been withheld." Suppressing this analysis from peer review is unconscionable. Public safety is endangered when engineers are precluded from studying how an ordinary office fire could completely and utterly destroy a forty-seven-story modem skyscraper such that for more that 100 feet it exhibited free-fall acceleration. Goertzel notes, "technological conspiracies often ... [make] bizarre claims that ... [information is] suppressed. In this case, it is not a bizarre claim but rather a bizarre reality. We welcome Goertzel's, and SKEPTICAL INQUIRER's, public call for NIST to release its suppressed analysis."

The "debunker" Oystein at the JREF Forum replied, commenting that my post "presents Discussion pieces at the JEM [Journal of Engineering Mechanics] as 'peer-reviewed articles', which shows the author (Talboo) know nothing about scientific discourse, or he flat-out lies ('discussions' about a peer-reviewed paper are published by the journal without peer-review)."

First off, after being told on YouTube that, "There is a rebuttal to Zdenek Bazant's January 2011 paper with an editor at JEM right now, "grandmastershek" responded, "You mean Bjorkmans comments? Yeah discussion papers are not peer reviewed.﻿"

No, it is not Bjorkman's comments. It is a substantial correction of major errors in the Bazant and Le January 2011 paper in JEM which are not ambiguous and that their claim that deceleration of the North Tower upper section in a﻿ natural collapse would be too small to be visible is erroneous. I hate to burst your little bubble here bubba but I would tend to think Discussion papers are more rigorously reviewed than standard papers, owing to the fact that they are criticizing a published paper and the author of the paper being criticized gets to respond.

Further backing up Szambot's argument, is chemical engineer James Gourley, who described the process of getting his discussion paper refuting Bazant published in the JEM on 911blogger.com. Gourley states, "Not much is ever written about what we go through to get these papers published. The publication of this paper is a case study in the struggles we face." He notes that he had to "remove language that the editors thought was too argumentative" and that he left out a number of points he could have raised, knowing that "it would be difficult to get a paper critical of the official story published in a mainstream scientific journal" and "didn't want to give JEM any reason to reject it."

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), which oversees the JEM and many other scientific journals, makes essentially the same point, in their "ASCE Authors’ Guide," as Szamboti did, that "Discussions present significant comments or questions about the technical content of a technical paper." The guide goes on to state that "Discussions follow the requirements for other manuscripts except that they do not have abstracts, introductions, or conclusions." [All above emphasis added.]

Considered in sum, it certainly looks like discussion papers are indeed peer-reviewed. But just to make certain, I contacted Szamboti as well as esteemed scientist Dr. Crockett Grabbe, who replied:

I know they are peer reviewed in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, as Richard Johns and I just went through that with our Discussion of the Le and Bazant January 2011 paper [mentioned here]. There was at least one reviewer other than the editor.

As Scootle recently noted, stay tuned for an upcoming "post about the red-gray chips that addresses Millette's report and outlines an
upcoming, blind study of the WTC dust commissioned by chemical engineer Mark Basile." The article will kick off a fundraising campaign for the study that I am helping spearhead. Let the red chips fall where they may!

I am a concerned citizen who wants the real truth about 9/11 exposed. I find science fascinating. I also enjoy researching the history of the origins of religion.
Bio: http://www.scientificmethod911.org/authors/taylor_author.html
Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/3zynhh3

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

From Jesse Ventura's book, 63 Documents The Government Doesn't Want You to Read (full audio book for free here):

Two months before the events of September 11th, 2001 [July 10th 2001], an FBI agent in Phoenix named Kenneth Williams sent a memo to the bureau brass in D.C. and New York. The agent was warning about an unusually high number of Muslims being trained at American flight schools, perhaps part of "a coordinated effort" by Osama bin Laden. His memo was ignored at the higher levels.

Friday, July 6, 2012

Ground to air missiles are to be deployed in London, ready defend the skies from a terrorist attack during the Olympics. Anyone who thinks this is justified needs to admit themselves to an asylum for people more delusional and paranoid than even the most stereotypical tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists will ever be!

By now, you're probably familiar with the nonsense theory that the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks on 9/11 in order to justify the Iraq War

[...]

So in light of the truth about the Tonkin incident, is it really so crazy to think that 9/11 was an inside job? Yes. Still crazy. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy makes such elaborate conspiracy theories seem even more unlikely (to the sane). It proves that you don't need to orchestrate elaborate conspiracies to justify an unjust war. All you need is the ability to ignore 90 percent of the facts and focus on the ones that support the case for war. In that way, the Tonkin incident bears a much closer resemblance to the many intelligence oopsies that happened in the run up to the Iraq War.

Ironic that they would say "All you need is the ability to ignore 90 percent of the facts and focus on the ones that support the case for war", since that's all we're really saying they're doing about 9/11. But the 9/11 conspiracy wasn't just about needing an excuse for war. It was about creating the whole "post-9/11 world" that we are now living in. Such a transformations in global society do require "eloborate conspiracies".

In response to that article, I thought I'd outline 6 more "insane" conspiracies that actually happened that you probably won't read about on Cracked.

6) Bush and Blair Plot a Modern Day Gulf of Tonkin / NorthwoodsAccording to: A White House Memo, Channel 4 News

Another conspiracy the authors of the Cracked article could have mentioned was Operation Northwoods, a series of false flag proposals outlined in 1962 memo authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff but rejected by President Kennedy. The intent was to stage false flag terrorist attacks to generate public support for a war against Cuba. One of the proposed scenarios involved converting a civil aircraft into a drone and substituting it for a passenger-carrying duplicate mid-flight and destroying it in a way that made it look like Cuba was responsible.

But this sort of thing isn't just history. In the weeks leading up to the Iraq War, President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair discussed the possibility of a modern day Northwoods-like event. On February 2, 2006, Channel 4 News in Britain reported on the minutes of a meeting that took place between Bush and Blair at the White House on January 31, 2003. The memo reveals how they discussed the possibility of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter escort over Iraq, painted in UN colors; hoping that Saddam would fire on them so they could drum up support for the war.

On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texa. According to the most plausible of the official timelines, three shots were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. The first, when Kennedy's limo was less than 140 feet away from Oswald, was a wild miss that rebounded off a curb and injured a bystander. The second, fired 6.3 seconds later, between Zapruder Frames 223 and 224, when the limo was 190 feet away from Oswald, was the infamous "magic bullet" shot that allegedly created seven wounds in two people. And the third, fired 4.9 seconds after that, between Zapruder Frames 312 and 313, when the limo was 265 feet away from Oswald, was the fatal head shot.

The idea that Oswald could fire, re-load, re-aim, fire again, reload again, re-aim again and fire a third time in only 11 seconds with increasing accuracy on a moving target accelerating away from him is itself far-fetched to some, and over the past nearly 50 years, all three shots, and the possibility of more shots, have been analysed and debated in detail by researchers. The Zapruder film, the witness statements, the audio recordings and Kennedy's autopsy reports have been gone over with a fine tooth comb and many have argued that shots had to have been fired from other locations, such as the Dal-Tex building or the famous "grassy knoll". If those researchers are correct, then that would mean that there were multiple gunmen, and multiple gunmen would imply a conspiracy.

The media and the so-called skeptics of course like to dismiss and ridicule these researchers as "conspiracy nuts", even though the officials themselves once endorsed one of these theories. Between 1963 and 1979, there were four official investigations into the JFK assassination: the Warren Commission, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), which also investigated the assassination of Martin Luther King on April 4, 1968. The HSCA report, published in 1979, concluded that both Kennedy and King were probably assassinated as the result of conspiracy. Regarding Kennedy, the HSCA criticized the Department of Justice, the FBI, the CIA and the Warren Commission for withholding information and concluded that the acoustical evidence and witness testimony established with a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at President Kennedy. They also noted that Kennedy did not receive adequate secret service protection, a fact cited by some researchers as evidence of foreknowledge and stand-down. Watch a December 30, 1978 NBC news report of the findings below.

In 1998, a CIA document dated January 4, 1967 entitled "Countering Criticisms of the Warren Report" was declassified. The document states that:

From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy ... a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone ... This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization ... Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.

One of the actions the report called for was "To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics". Prior to the mid-to-late 60s, when this document was written, the term "conspiracy theory" rarely appeared in the major print media, and the term "conspiracy theorist" had never been used at all. From then onwards, usage of the terms exploded. This document is evidence that the "conspiracy theorist" ad-hominem was likely the brain child of the CIA. Even more interestingly, the arguments the report suggested be used when responding to critics in the media are familiar talking points we hear all the time from debunkers, such as"Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States", critics"fall in love"with their theories, there's been"no new evidence"and various arguments of incredulity. Conspiracy theory skeptics and debunkers (and Cracked authors) literally employ tactics outlined 45 years ago in a CIA propaganda memo!

4) The Bilderberg Group Created the EUAccording to: The Bilderberg Group

While it is true that no official policy is set at Bilderberg itself, its members are highly influential people who are expected to implement the Bilderberg agenda in the arenas in which they do have official influence. In 2010, former NATO secretary general Willie Claes discussed Bilderberg proceedings on a Belgian radio show. In this MP3 clip, he says:

... but of course, always the report tries to draw a synthesis, and everyone is supposed to use those conclusions in the environment where he has his influence.

There are many pieces of evidence which prove that Bilderberg was instrumental in the creation of the European Union. In 2009, the 1955 Bilderberg conference report was leaked by Wikileaks. The report discusses the prospect of "European unity" under a "common market" and "the need to achieve a common currency". In 2003, BBC Radio 4 examined
the papers of the former Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell, who attended the
early Bilderberg meetings in the 1950s and made notes. One document
included the following quote:

Some sort of European Union has long been a utopian dream, but the
conference was agreed it was now a necessity of our times. Only in some
form of union can the freemasons of Europe achieve a moral and material
strength capable of meeting any threat to their freedom.

The Treaty of Rome in 1957, essentially the birth of the EU, was signed
into existence by, among others, Bilderberg attendee Paul-Henri Spaak.
George McGhee, former US Ambassador to West Germany, reportedly stated that "The Treaty of Rome, which brought the Common Market into being, was nurtured at Bilderberg meetings". Bilderberg Chairman Étienne Davignon admitted to the EU Observer in 2009 that Bilderberg "helped create the euro in the 1990s".

In 2010, a member of a related group, the Trilateral Commission, inadvertantly let slip to activists during a meeting in Ireland that they are "deciding the future of the world", "need a world government" and, referring to Iran, "need to get rid of them". Another member revealed that "Bilderberg expects us to have a plan outlined".

This letter didn't come out until the inquest nearly a decade later. Had French officials known about it back in 1997, they would have had no choice but to investigate the incident as a murder, and Prince Charles would have been the prime suspect.

There are numerous anomalies surrounding the so-called "accident", but two in particular stick out to me:

1. As every animation ever made of the incident shows, prior to crashing into the pillar, Diana's Mercedes side-swiped a white Fiat Uno. The driver of said Fiat would have seen the Mercedes spin out of control, smash into a pillar and rebound into the middle of the road directly in front of him. Yet supposedly, he just nonchalantly drove around the wreckage as if nothing happened. He didn't even brake. The only way this makes any sense is if he was involved in a plot to intentionally cause the Mercedes to crash. The owner of the Fiat has never been definitively identified, and the prime suspect allegedly killed himself by setting himself on fire. In 2000, he was found dead in his burned-out car in a woodland area 400 miles away from his home with a two inch hole in his left temple and the doors to his car locked from the outside with the keys nowhere to be found. Nothing suspicious there!

2. Even mainstream documentaries have admitted that there is no way the driver of the Mercedes, Henri Paul, could have been as drunk as the official story says he was. In 2003, the Discovery Channel aired a program called "Diana: Death of a Princess" as part of its Unsolved History series. The documentary was a MythBusters-style conspiracy theory debunking program of the type that we are all too familar with, but even its producers could not deny that there were serious problems with the official story that Henri Paul had a high blood-alcohol content. See here for the clip. Both bodyguards who were with Diana the night she died - Trevor Rees-Jones and Kes Wingfield - swore in interviews that Henri Paul was not drunk and that they would not have allowed him to drive had he been drunk.

Those two facts, along with Diana's letter, strongly suggest that the incident was more than just an unfortunate accident.

2) The 9/11 Prior-Knowledge/"LIHOP" Conspiracy

Oh boy! Where do I begin?! Just go here: Complete 911 Timeline! Cracked authors ridicule any notion of 9/11 being an 'inside job', but maybe they're more open to the possibility of officials simply having advanced knowledge of 9/11 and allowing it to happen so they could use it as the "new pearl harbor" they so desperately wanted. Even if this is as far as it goes, it still implies a global, bi-partisan, fake war on terror conspiracy.

I
suspect there are probably some religious fundamentalists out there who
believe Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to be some evil satanic
conspiracy or something. While this is probably
bullshit, there is an element of truth to the conspiracy claim that
today's Darwin zealots openly acknowledge.

Historically,
most scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts come about from the
bottom up, and the natural acceptance of ground-breaking new ideas by
the establishment is often a gradual process. Consider, for example, the
Copernican Revolution or the shift from Newtonian Gravity to
Einsteinian Relativity. The Darwinian revolution, however, came about
from the top down, and wasn't entirely natural, but manipulated. Which
is ironic if you think about it!

In 1864, five years after the publication of The Origin of Species, the "X Club",
a social club of nine prominent, highly influential scientists known
for their advocacy of Darwin's ideas was founded. Its members included
Joseph Dalton Hooker, Darwin's closest friend, Thomas Henry Huxley,
"Darwin's Bulldog", and Herbert Spencer, coiner of the term "Survival of
the fittest". The club met in London nine times a year for 28 years,
during which time many of its members would go on to hold key posts at
the Royal Society and the British Association for the Advancement of
Science. The group used their influence to shape much of late-Victorian
science.

Although
primarily an opportunity for busy friends to socialize, the club
rapidly started to function as a powerful group concerned with decisions
significant to the course of science - grants, honors, posts, and the
like. The influence naturally favored those sympathetic to Darwin's
ideas.

It
was by exploiting their position within this network that Huxley and
his fellow converts ensured that Darwinism had come to stay. They
avoided open conflict in scientific journals but used their editorial
influence to ensure that Darwinian values were incorporated gradually
into the literature. The journal Nature was founded at least in
part as a vehicle for promoting Darwinism. Academic appointments were
also manipulated to favor younger scientists with Darwinian sympathies,
who would ensure that the next generation was educated to take the
theory for granted. So successful was this takeover of the British
scientific community that by the 1880s, its remaining opponents were
claiming that Darwinism had become a blindly accepted dogma carefully
shielded from any serious challenge.

So the world's most prestigious journal was literally founded by Darwinists for the purpose of promoting Darwinism!

Because
the Darwinian revolution was manipulated from the start by a social
network of influential elite scientists, it was, in a sense, a
conspiracy. It wasn't necessarily a malevolant conspiracy (although
researchers into the history of eugenics may argue that it was), but it
was politically and philosophically driven, and therefore not entirely
scientific.

And once again, we have a modern day equivalent. It's called "Climategate".

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Hello, John-Michael Talboo from the Debunking the Debunkers blog here, located at http://911debunkers.blogspot.com. Welcome to Pennsylvanians for 9/11 Truth, a group for people from the Keystone State who question the official 9/11 story and other 9/11 activists wishing to post action alerts. In an effort to avoid the drama that comes from divisive issues in the 9/11 Truth Movement, e.g., what hit the Pentagon, directed-energy weapon theories, TV-fakery, etc., it is asked that postings are kept centered around Pennsylvania specific 9/11 truth events and activism ideas/reports. This type of activism related material is welcome from other states and countries as well, but the Group's central focus will be on Pennsylvania related items to the greatest extent possible.

All Pennsylvanians, as well as others, who are interested in the the range of topics pertaining to 9/11 Truth are cordially invited to join the Group and actively participate.

If you would like to make a suggestion for inclusion in the files/photos/links section, or have any other comments, I can be reached at jmtalboo@gmail.com.

From the 9/11 Grassroots Organizers list located at http://911grassroots.org:

DC 9/11 Truth in the 2012 Takoma Park 4th of July Parade

dc911truth.org first participated in the Takoma Park Maryland 4th of July parade in 2006 with an information table. That effort was so successful that we decided to enter a float in the parade the following year, 2007. This is our second year to have a float in the parade and we have found it to be a great way to reach a large audience with a minimum of effort and expense (and it is a lot of fun!)

We had a fantastic fun time spreading the truth to the cheering crowds lining the streets. The one mile parade route was lined with a crowd estimated at over 20,000. The spectators were mostly supportive and we received applause and “thumbs-up” all along the route. We also distributed over 2000 pieces of literature to the crowd including the Rock Creek Free Press newspaper, 9/11 information cards, flyers and DVDs. We also had an information booth at the midpoint of the parade where people could buy books, DVDs, bumper stickers, buttons and other 9/11 truth paraphernalia.

Participating in the parade is a fun experience and a great way to reach out to the general public with our message.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Thought this was a good collection of the various angles of the WTC 7 collapse, especially for those just beginning to look into all the evidence. Especially interesting is the loud "boom" at about 4:34 min just before the penthouse collapses.
Related:

WTC 7 Petition to the National Institute for Standards and Technology, U.S. Congress, and President Obama

Monday, July 2, 2012

James Hufferd, Ph.D., coordinator of 911grassroots.org, which hosts the 9/11 Grassroots Organizers list, has been kind enough to provide Debunking the Debunkers blog readers with the first chapters from his two latest books.

In America’s creed (the commonly-acclaimed beliefs or preferences that distinguish us as Americans – in our own minds), there are five tenets. (See my e-book on Amazon.com entitled Troublesome Country. I know this sounds shameless, but read it! Read it! Much pertains to 911 Truth and will astound.)

Homeland: A Comedy is a rollicking but merciless satire of the crisis-ridden American political scene, involving a president who sells the United States to pay off the national debt. When the newly elected President, slick but not too bright, sells his bankrupt nation – damn the Constitution! – to The Corporation, what happens? He sets out to fleece the rest of government and a gullible and unwary public. The absurdity mounts as the press buys in to this grand charade. But can the scheme hold up when two intrepid journalists and a handful of legislators who won't drink the Kool-Aid find the courage to look behind the curtain?
This satiric novel gets at what is wrong with today's America. It's a real punch to the smug giant's gut.

"The newly released CIA documents confirm what we already knew: There was no 'Prague connection' between al-Qaida and Iraqi intelligence,"... "What is new in the documents, however, is evidence that the Bush White House had intelligence strongly refuting the 'Prague connection' in December 2001, yet continued to make public claims to the contrary in the run up to the U.S. war in Iraq."

Unfortunately, the document in question, prepared by the CIA, is heavily redacted and thus I cannot tell if this completely rules out the possibility of Atta meeting with the Iraqi intelligence agent or not. It is apparent that at some point in time, quite possibly after Cheney's interview with Tim Russert, the administration decided that the meeting had not taken place. It is not apparent that was the case in December of 2001.

But we don't need the new documents to prove that Cheney lied. As David Sirota and Christy Harvey demonstrated in an August 3, 2004 article on InTheseTimes.com:

In September 2002, the CIA handed Cheney a classified intelligence assessment that cast specific, serious doubt on whether the Atta meeting ever occurred. Yet, that same month, Richard Perle, then chairman of the Bush’s Defense Policy Board, said, “Muhammad Atta met [a secret collaborator of Saddam Hussein] prior to September 11. We have proof of that, and we are sure he wasn’t just there for a holiday.” In the same breath, Perle openly admitted, “The meeting is one of the motives for an American attack on Iraq.”

By the winter of 2002, even America’s allies were telling the administration to relent: In November, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he had seen no evidence of a meeting in Prague between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent.

But it did not stop. In September 2003, on “Meet the Press,” Cheney dredged up the story again, saying, “With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack.” He provided no new evidence, opted not to mention that the Czechs long ago had withdrawn the allegations, and ignored new evidence that showed the story was likely untrue.

Even today, with all of the intelligence firmly against him, Cheney remains unrepentant. Asked in June about whether the meeting had occurred, he admitted, “That’s never been proven.” Then he added, “It’s never been refuted.” When CNBC’s Gloria Borger asked about his initial claim that the meeting was “pretty well confirmed,” Cheney snapped, “No, I never said that. I never said that. Absolutely not.”

His actual words in December 2001: “It’s been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service.”

In other words, Cheney hit a new low. He resorted not only to lying about the story, but lying about lying about the story.

Furthermore, former FBI agent Ali Soufan, (who refused a request from the Bush administration to report links between Iraq and Al Qaida) writes in his book, The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11, of fellow agent Andy Arena. Soufan notes that Arena was "in charge at the Detroit office who was appointed Pat D'Amuro's deputy in investigating 9/11." Soufan reports"how the Bush administration, unsatified with an initial FBI report showing no links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, asked for rewrite, a request that senior FBI official Andy Arena refused."